alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019093EN.01007401.xml

| 11.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 93/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 93/74

---

Action brought on 17 January 2019 — Benavides Torres/Council

(Case T-35/19)

(2019/C 93/96)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Antonio José Benavides Torres (Caracas, Venezuela) (represented by: L. Giuliano and F. Di Gianni, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653, (2) in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 (1) and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653, (2) in so far as their provisions concern the applicant; and

| — | order the defendant to pay costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law alleging that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment in finding that his name should be maintained on the lists set out in Annex I to Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 (3) and Annex IV to Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063, (4) notwithstanding the fact that he would no longer serve any role within and would not be related to the Venezuelan political or military authorities.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1656 of 6 November 2018 amending Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 10).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1653 of 6 November 2018 implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 276, 7.11.2018, p. 1).

(3)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2074 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 60).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2017/2063 of 13 November 2017 concerning restrictive measures in view of the situation in Venezuela (OJ L 295, 14.11.2017, p. 21).

---
# C_2021471EN.01004201.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2021 — Wepa Hygieneprodukte and Others v Commission

(Case T-238/19) (1)

(State aid - Aid regime implemented by Germany for certain large electricity consumers - Exemption from network charges for the period 2012-2013 - Decision declaring the aid regime incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering the recovery of the aid granted - Action for annulment - Time limit for bringing an action - Admissibility - Concept of ‘aid’ - State resources - Selectivity)

(2021/C 471/58)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Wepa Hygieneprodukte GmbH (Arnsberg, Germany), Wepa Leuna GmbH (Leuna, Germany), Wepa Papierfabrik Sachsen GmbH (Arnsberg) (represented by: H. Janssen, A. Vallone and L. Kienzle, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: D. Klebs, J. Möller, R. Kanitz, S. Heimerl and S. Costanzo, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2019/56 of 28 May 2018 on aid scheme SA.34045 (2013/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by Germany for baseload consumers under Paragraph 19 StromNEV (OJ 2019 L 14, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Wepa Hygieneprodukte GmbH, Wepa Leuna GmbH and Wepa Papierfabrik Sachsen GmbH to each bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Wepa Hygieneprodukte GmbH, Wepa Leuna GmbH and Wepa Papierfabrik Sachsen GmbH to each bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 24.6.2019.

---
# C_2019164EN.01005601.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/56

---

Action brought on 14 March 2019 — Mersinis v ESMA

(Case T-163/19)

(2019/C 164/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Michail Mersinis (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Pafitis, lawyer)

Defendant: European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant’s decision of 23 May 2018 not to select the applicant for the post of senior legal officer in respect of the vacancy ESMA/2017/VAC19/AD7. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant’s decision of 23 May 2018 not to select the applicant for the post of senior legal officer in respect of the vacancy ESMA/2017/VAC19/AD7.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging unlawful composition of the selection committee. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging unlawful composition of the selection committee.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging the exercise of bias in favour of the candidate selected for the post in question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging the exercise of bias in favour of the candidate selected for the post in question.

---
### NUMBER 13

- 20

- 00 479

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

THE CITY OF PORT ISABEL,

TEXAS, JJ ZAMORA, AND

MARTIN CANTU, Appellants,

v.

BROWNSVILLE NAVIGATION

DISTRICT OF CAMERON

COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 445 th District Court

of Cameron C ounty, Texas.



### ORDER

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Hinojosa and Silva

Order Per Curiam

Appellants

, the C ity of Port Isabel, JJ Zamora, and Martin Cantu

, appeal the trial

court’s order sustaining appellee Brownsville Navigation District of Cameron County,2 Texas’s (BND) plea to the jurisdiction. On June 30, 2022, this Court abated the appeal

and requested the parties to provide us w ith an update on the related federal appeal. We

further directed the parties to file briefs with this Court discussing whether the disposition

of the federal appeal rendered this appeal moot. On July 11, 2022, appellee filed a status

report with this Court and included a copy of the federal appeal opinion. The briefs

regarding mootness were due August 10, 2022.

O n August 4, 2022, the parties filed a joint motion for extension of time to file

additional briefing pursuant to order of abatement and motion to enter briefing schedule

.

We GRANT the parties’ joint motion for extension in part and DENY in part

. We GRANT

the parties’ joint motion to enter briefing schedule. T he briefing schedule is as follows:

Appellant s shall file a brief no later than twenty days from the date of this order;

appellee shall file a brief no later than twenty days following the filing of appellant s ’ brief.

Appellant s may file a reply brief no later than ten days following the filing of app ellee’s

brief. The appeal may be reinstated upon completion of the additional briefing or upon

further order of this Court.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed on the

11th day of August, 202 2

.
# C_2021297EN.01003501.xml

| 26.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 9 June 2021 — DI v ECB

(Case T-514/19) (1)

(Civil service - ECB staff - Reimbursement of medical expenses and education expenses - Forgery - Disciplinary proceedings - Dismissal - Criminal proceedings - No further action taken - Acquittal - Competence of the Executive Board - Legal certainty - Time-barred disciplinary proceedings - Adage according to which ‘disciplinary proceedings arising out of a criminal offence must await the outcome of the criminal trial’ - Presumption of innocence - Impartiality of the Disciplinary Committee - Error of law - Probative value of the evidence - Reasonable time - Proportionality of the penalty - Intensity of the judicial review - Liability)

(2021/C 297/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: DI (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: F. Malfrère and F. von Lindeiner, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union seeking, first, annulment of the ECB’s decision of 7 May 2019 dismissing the applicant without notice on disciplinary grounds and of its decision of 25 June 2019 refusing to reopen the disciplinary proceedings, second, an order that the applicant be reinstated as from 11 May 2019 and, third, compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered as a result of those decisions and by reason of the length of the disciplinary proceedings.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders DI to bear his own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the European Central Bank (ECB), which shall bear the rest of its costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders DI to bear his own costs and to pay three quarters of the costs of the European Central Bank (ECB), which shall bear the rest of its costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 29 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating 

to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico (for himself, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. BEGICH, and 

Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 by the Congress: 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 29 IS 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to regulate 

3 the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents 

4 with respect to Federal elections, including through set5 ting limits on— 

6 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates 

7 for nomination for election to, or for election to, 

8 Federal office; and 

9 ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be 

10 made by, in support of, or in opposition to such can11 didates. 

12 ‘‘SECTION 2. A State shall have power to regulate the 

13 raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents 

14 with respect to State elections, including through setting 

15 limits on— 

16 ‘‘(1) the amount of contributions to candidates 

17 for nomination for election to, or for election to, 

18 State office; and 

19 ‘‘(2) the amount of expenditures that may be 

20 made by, in support of, or in opposition to such can21 didates. 

22 ‘‘SECTION 3. Congress shall have power to implement 

23 and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 21, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38450-38471]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15440]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

[CPSC Docket No. 21-2]


Amazon.Com, Inc.

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

ACTION: Publication of a Complaint under the Consumer Product Safety 
Act.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Under provisions of its Rules of Practice for Adjudicative 
Proceeding, the Consumer Product Safety Commission must publish in the 
Federal Register Complaints which it issues. Published below is a 
Complaint: In the matter of Amazon.com.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division 
of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer 
Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 
(301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission voted 3-1 to authorize 
issuance of this Complaint. Acting Chairman Adler, Commissioners Kaye 
and Feldman voted to authorize issuance of the Complaint. Commissioner 
Baiocco voted to not authorize issuance of the Complaint. The text of 
the Complaint appears below.

    Dated: July 15, 2021.
Alberta E. Mills,
Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P

[[Page 38451]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.000


[[Page 38452]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.001


[[Page 38453]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.002


[[Page 38454]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.003


[[Page 38455]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.004


[[Page 38456]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.005


[[Page 38457]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.006


[[Page 38458]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.007


[[Page 38459]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.008


[[Page 38460]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.009


[[Page 38461]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.010


[[Page 38462]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.011


[[Page 38463]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.012


[[Page 38464]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.013


[[Page 38465]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.014


[[Page 38466]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.015


[[Page 38467]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.016


[[Page 38468]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.018


[[Page 38469]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.019


[[Page 38470]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN21JY21.021


[[Page 38471]]


[FR Doc. 2021-15440 Filed 7-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-C
(22 Misc. Rep. 588.)

#### SMITH v. KETELTAS et al.

(Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County.

February, 1898.)

Lunatics—Action Against—Guakdian Ad Litem.

Under Code Civ. Free. § 426, subd. 2, providing that, if defendant is a lunatic, a summons shall be delivered to the committee as well as to the defendant, and section 428, authorizing the appointment of a guardian ad litem where it appears that the interest of the committee, “to whom a copy of the summons has been delivered,” is adverse to that of the defendant, appointment of guardian ad litem can be only after service of summons on the committee and defendant, which can only be after application to the court for4 leave to bring an action against the lunatic.

Action by Eugene K. Smith against Alice Keteltas and others.

Defendants move to set aside service of summons. Granted.

Parsons, Shepard & Ogden, for the motion.

C. Bainbridge Smith, opposed.

*748TRUAX, J.

It was field in Soverhill v. Dickson, 5 How. Prac. 109, that an action could not be brought against a lunatic, for whom a committee had been appointed, without an application to this court, although the third subdivision of section 134 of the Code of Procedure-provided for the service of a summons upon the committee of the lunatic, and upon the lunatic personally. To the same effect is In re Delahunty, 28 Abb. N. C. 245, 18 N. Y. Supp. 395, decided in 1892 by the general term of the' First department. “It has been supposed,” said Judge Welles in Soverhill v. Dickson, “that section 134 of the Code authorized the commencement of the action at once, and without first applying for leave to prosecute. But this cannot be so. It only provides who the summons shall be served upon, where an action is to be commenced.” The second subdivision of section 426 of the Code of Civil Procedure is no broader than subdivision 3 of section 134 of the Code of Procedure. In the case now before me a guardian ad litem was appointed ex parte, and it is claimed that such an appointment is authorized by section 428 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That section authorizes the appointment of a guardian ad litem only when it appears that the interest of the committee “h> whom a copy of the summons has been delivered is adverse to that of the defendant”; that is, section 428 authorizes the appointment only after the service of the summons upon the committee and the defendant as prescribed by subdivision 2 of section 426. But it has been shown that such a service can be legally made only after leave of the court has first been obtained. No such leave having been obtained in this case, the service of the summons on the committee, and the appointment of a guardian ad litem, should be set aide. Motion granted, with §10 costs.
#### In the Matter of Jaziel M., an Infant. Genesee County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Nicole R., Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

[942 NYS2d 828]

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Genesee County (Eric R. Adams, J.), entered March 1, 2011 in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10. The order adjudged that respondent had neglected the subject child and placed respondent under the supervision of petitioner.

It is hereby ordered that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs.

Same memorandum as in *Matter of Romeo M.*(94 AD3d 1464 [2012]). Present — Scudder, PJ., Centra, Bindley, Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.
# C_2019139EN.01009901.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/99 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/99

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Numbi v Council

(Case T-120/19)

(2019/C 139/100)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: John Numbi (Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo) (represented by: T. Bontinck, P. De Wolf, M. Forgeois, and A. Guillerme, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) 2018/1940 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex II to Decision 2010/788/CFSP;

| — | annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1931 of 10 December 2018, in so far as the applicant remains at No 5 in Annex Ia to Regulation (EC) No 1183/2005;

| — | rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the provisions of Article 3(2)(a) of Decision 2010/788/CFSP and Article 2b(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 1183/2005/EC are unlawful;

| — | order the Council to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are in essence identical or similar to those raised in Case T-103/19, Mende Omalanga v Council.

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ricardo Benitez, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Peter McQuillan, J.), rendered on June 16, 1983, and judgment of said court (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on December 12, 1983, unanimously affirmed, and the motion for leave to serve and file a supplemental *pro se*brief denied. No opinion. Concur — Sandler, J. P., Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Appeal of Provco Pinegood :

Sumneytown, LLC From The :

Decision Dated December 4, 2017 :

of The Board of Commissioners of : No. 1554 C.D. 2018

Upper Gwynedd Township :

:

Appeal of: Provco Pinegood :

Sumneytown, LLC :

O R D E R

NOW, September 23, 2019, having considered Appellant’s application 

for reargument, and Appellees’ answers in response thereto, the application is 

denied.

 

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

 President Judge
# C_2021242EN.01003202.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Correia v EESC

(Case T-843/19) (1)

(Civil service - EESC staff - Members of the temporary staff - Refusal to regrade - Action for annulment - Time limit for complaints - Burden of proving expiry of the time limit - Act adversely affecting an official - Admissibility - Equal treatment - Legal certainty - Action for damages - Non-material damage)

(2021/C 242/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Paula Correia (Sint-Stevens-Woluwe, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee (represented by: M. Pascua Mateo, X. Chamodraka and K. Gambino, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the EESC adopted on a date unknown to the applicant, which the applicant became aware of on 12 April 2019, refusing to regrade her in grade AST 7 in the 2019 regrading process and, secondly, compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the applicant on account of that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) refusing to regrade Mrs Paula Correia in the 2019 regrading process; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) refusing to regrade Mrs Paula Correia in the 2019 regrading process;

| 2. | Orders the EESC to pay Mrs Correia the sum of EUR 2 000 in respect of the non-material damage she suffered; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the EESC to pay Mrs Correia the sum of EUR 2 000 in respect of the non-material damage she suffered;

| 3. | Orders the EESC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EESC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 10.2.2020.

---